This semester, the syllabus for every one of my classes mentions Creative Artificial Intelligence and sites like ChatGPT or Copilot. It makes sense. Professors should develop some sort of policy on AI, whether for or against it. According to A survey by the Digital Education Council86 percent of students use generative AI for their studies. But for the sake of our environment, we cannot afford to use AI in its current state.

The energy consumption associated with ChatGPT is very high. For example, the energy consumption for training a large language model such as ChatGPT has a carbon footprint. 300,000 kg of CO2 emissions, Compare 125 round-trip flights between Beijing and New York.

Still, the major environmental problem associated with AI is the depletion of an essential natural resource: fresh water. The latest UN Environment Report It found that nearly two-thirds of the world’s population faces water shortages for at least one month a year. This number is expected to increase. At the same time, high-energy data centers that power AI sites use large amounts of water for the cooling process. Predictive water use of AI is on the way to success. 6.6 billion cubic meters by 2027a relative. For comparison, it uses the same amount of water. Cuba, a country of 11 million people every year.

The role of artificial AI has been hugely negative for our environment, both due to carbon emissions and water consumption.

Companies like OpenAI and Microsoft have been vague and vague when pressed on efforts to improve the sustainability of AI. Brad Smith, President of Microsoft, Fakhria has informed “By 2030 we will be water positive, meaning we will fill more water than we use.”

However, Microsoft has failed to provide extensive details on what this “water positive” plan will look like and how it will specifically work to mitigate the dire consequences of creative AI. Their 2023 Environmental Report found that from 2021 to 2022, Microsoft’s Water consumption increased by 34%.After the introduction of generative AI in the company. Companies, especially companies that profit massively from AI (Microsoft’s approx $10 billion a year profit from AIThey should not be trusted to correct their behavior for the good of both our planet and the people who live on it.

It is our responsibility that consumers demand better. Those with a vested interest in the continued health of the planet and the climate have a moral imperative to oppose artificial AI, at least in its current unsustainable form. We can, and must, advocate for increased sustainability practices when it comes to AI and increased transparency regarding energy sources as well as overall resource consumption.

There are options to make AI a more sustainable practice. Moving AI operations to energy-efficient data centers that are more transparent about energy usage and use green energy sources is one such option. We should also advocate for a preference for targeted, field-specific AI models rather than broad, generic AI platforms. ChatGPT, which will increase overall performance and reduce environmental impact..

In the meantime though, we shouldn’t be using AI. The widespread use of generative AI is what makes it so dangerous for the environment. One effective method of opposition is mass boycott of sites like ChatGPT and Gemini.

This does not mean that ending climate change is the individual’s responsibility (just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of fossil fuel-related emissions). productionBut this is to say that consumers have the power to fight anthropogenic climate change and we must use that power. ChatGPT is unique in that its environment is destroyed by users.

ChatGPT is primarily a consumer product. The bulk of consumption comes directly from individuals.which makes it uniquely vulnerable to consumer boycotts. Because most of its carbon and freshwater consumption comes from single individuals, they have the power to effect change through targeted boycotts of generative AI.

As the AP reports, a chat GPT session is involved. 5-50 prompts use a maximum of 500 ml.the equivalent of a water bottle. Students have already completed schoolwork and can continue without using creative AI.

The level of convenience associated with generative AI is simply not worth it. Signing out of ChatGPT is a small but effective step that can reduce one’s carbon footprint and put financial pressure on these companies to operate more sustainably.

Alex Benach PO ’28 hails from Washington, D.C. He remembers the days when Northern Virginia wasn’t considered the data center capital of the world. He would like to go back to that time.

Related